HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Bill Keller's explanation is ludicrous. Fairness? Take a look:

Holding a fresh draft of the story just days before the election also was an issue of fairness, Mr. Keller said. I agree that candidates affected by a negative article deserve to have time — several days to a week — to get their response disseminated before voters head to the polls."

I'll let Hilzoy and Empty Wheel do all the heavy lifting on the explanation here. The short version? "Fairness" to the administration should be but one of many criteria on which to base such a decision. What about fairness to its readers? Or to the general public? Or lest we forget, to the other candidates in the race? Why was their concern over fairness so damn one dimensional?

And to think they're labeled our "liberal" media. Good lord. Imagine how the British media would have played this one... Imagine how the WSJ or Fox News would have played a story similarly damaging to a Democratic candidate... Imagine how even a truly neutral "we report, you decide" press would have responded. And then compare that to what you see here.

I'm sorry, but if you still believe in the myth of a "liberal media" you must be living on some other planet.

Want more? Boehlert's got your back.